Bush: "Iraq Inspections Not Encouraging"

Washington Post ^ | 12/02/02 | Sandra soberaj

[joesnuffy]

WASHINGTON –– President Bush warned Iraq's Saddam Hussein that he has until a Sunday deadline to prove he is serious about averting war. After the first week of United Nations weapons inspections, Bush said: "So far, the signs are not encouraging."

[mhking]

Why assume Bush doesn't already know where many of the weapons are stored ?

This is key -- I'm sure that a certain percentage of the weapons and their locations are known to the Administration; and those are key indicators to the President of whether or not Saddam is even remotely thinking about complying. Additionally, if there is movement with those particular items, this could be a signal to the President that something preemptive is underway.

In addition, on that point, keep in mind that if Saddam feels that we're close to the endgame of this charade, he might get jumpy and try to go first, trying to take out as much as he can with that one "good shot." Not only watch Sunday, but keep an eye on everything after Wednesday or so of this week. Things could happen much faster than anyone suspects.

[Grampa Dave]

You are exactly right. With your comments re a lot of Americans putting their life on the line when this starts.

We are joking now, but we are praying for our service men/women and will be until this is over.

Apparently a lot of the Episcopal Bishops asked for very specific Thanksgiving blessings for our troops on Thanksgiving and this past Sunday. It was very positive to hear these blessings/prayers and the replies by the members during the blessings/prayers.

[Theyknow]

This is an absolute joke. Just who are the three people who believe that the weapons inspections will have ANYTHING to do with the invasion? Please if you know them let me know, I have some oceanfront property in Oklahoma to sell them.

[Grampa Dave]

I have been posting for about two weeks, what your reply below is saying. That Uncle Saddam could force this attack to start on him before the 9th by some rash act or acts.

You posted, Keep in mind that if Saddam feels that we're close to the endgame of this charade, he might get jumpy and try to go first, trying to take out as much as he can with that one "good shot." Not only watch Sunday, but keep an eye on everything after Wednesday or so of this week. Things could happen much faster than anyone suspects.

If he attacks the UK or Israel with massive terror attacks of some type of WMD, all hell will break lose ASAP. Tony Blair or Sharon will not wait for us to start retaliation.

Also, if intel shows that he intends to try some WMD, GW has told us that we will use preemptive strikes to prevent another 9/11.

[demlosers]

I'm listening to Bush's Pentagon speech now(tape delayed?) and he's talking tuff. An excellent speech.

[pgkdan]

"The inspectors are not in Iraq to play hide-and-seek with Mr. Saddam Hussein," the president said Monday in a get-tough speech at the Pentagon (news - web sites), his first extensive comment on the United Nations weapons inspections since they got underway last week.

This is the kind of biased editorial comment that's dumped inside a purported news story that really gets under my skin. This should have been reported as a 'speech at the Pentagon'...period.

[hchutch]

If Saddam so much as twitches the wrong way - we're going to shoot first and ask questions later.

One question - if Saddam starts to make a move while the inspectors are still in there, do we try to get the inspectors out? It would be a smart move, IMO, a means of A) preventing hostages and B) it just emphasizes the UN's lack of ability - we had to bail `em out.

[Mo1]

Geez .. let me try and post this on the right thread ..

Ummm .. I see a lot of note pads with these inspectors .. but where is the equipment to detect what Iraq has??

[Focault's Pendulum]

I found the following comment from another thread to to be rather excitingly insightful. One voice could unlock Iraq's secret (Is there one Iraqi who will talk?)

If is very unlikely Dubya started this plan to take down Saddam without evidence as least as good as what we had against Castro in the Cuban missile crisis. How could anyone think that a president of the US would make all this commitment based on faith in some dippy UN or that SM inspectors? That is not even close to the way Bush confronts a problem.

The after action reports to congress on the Gulf War by Norm Schwartzkopf, show that Norm's greatest fear was that Saddam would attack our troops in Saudi before we had the force in place to defeat him. It was also true that it took nearly 6 months to get that force in place. We have only marginally expanded our transportation abiltities. We are most certainly playing for time.

Our plan has to give Saddam the false belief that he can avoid our attack right, up until the time we attack. Keep him busy hiding stuff and writing volumes of face reports while we build up our forces. We would want him to believe we don't have the proof. He certainly believes that if we do have it, we will attack. If he were certain we had proof, he would certainly start a terrorist counter attack now.

That is not what we want. The people planning this Iraqi action had to prepare the American people. They had to devise mickey mouse games that gave Saddam the false belief he can win. Saddam has to think he can win right up until the United States has enough force in place to assure total and complete victory. Don't forget have our civilian population here at home protected also. That means checking tons of people in U.S. That takes time.

When we have our ducks in a row would be the time to go to the UN and present the complete and total evidence, the USA has been sitting on for a year. Following that presentation, it seems likely Bush would order the US forces to start the attack following some short time period. He would then give teh UN that time period to approve the attack. The UN would have the choice to approve or dis-approve. They would not be able to decide if we attack or not.

If you go back to Dubya's UN speech that was the choice he gave the UN. You do it or we will .. he said. At that time Bush did not ask for proof. He did not say if you can't find proof we won't attack. He said you take him down or I will.

This SCREAMS to me that the USA has plenty of proof any time it wants to present it.

I would say anyone who thinks our actions depend on the UN inspector side show or Saddam Report has not been paying attention for the last 2 years.

Common Tator....this was a remarkable piece of intuitive thinking.

FP

[Delbert]

That yellow and black book in the hands of the guy on the right looks like: Weapons of Mass Destruction Inspection For Dummies.

[Mo1]

Oh, believe me, I know, painfully well. Call it gallows humor, call it nervous humor, but in any event, I realize this runs the risk of getting real ugly real fast.

I understand and agree it can get ugly real fast .. something we all need to be prepared for just in case

[Grampa Dave]

You might want to go this thread on GW's talk at the Pentagon where this Compost bimbo got her story.

Here you can read what as said by GW and then our freepers without the Compost blurring of the message. (Link to GW's talk which was the basis of this compost story)

[VRWC_minion]

This is the kind of biased editorial comment that's dumped inside a purported news story that really gets under my skin

My daugher is a Jr in high school. she asked me if I could give her my weekly Washington Times so she can use an editorial to demonstrate the pursuasive techniques used by the writer.

I told her I had a better idea. Lets get the Hartford Courant (owned by LA times) and get the latest "news" article written by one of their staff. Sure enough, she was able to identify virtually every technique available to a pursuasive writer. In a nutshell, the writer was doing an analysis to indicate that the liberals should have no fear about the conservatives because they would surely over-reach and get booted out of office. Of course, it wasn't written like that but the same point was made.

[Grampa Dave]

Actually that is the Deli order list on a yellow clip board. The most important task of their day is listing what their people want for lunch.

[Dog Gone]

Sam has been doing this lately on many threads, and I haven't quite figured out the point of it.

[VRWC_minion]

One question - if Saddam starts to make a move while the inspectors are still in there, do we try to get the inspectors out?

I predict that Bush will ask that Sadam destroy his weapons and failure to do so will result in the US doing it for him. This should provide ample warning to the inspectors. There shouldn't be any reason for them to leave.

[steveegg]

One question - if Saddam starts to make a move while the inspectors are still in there, do we try to get the inspectors out? It would be a smart move, IMO, a means of A) preventing hostages and B) it just emphasizes the UN's lack of ability - we had to bail `em out.

I'm of a split mind on this; part of me wants to say "<expletive deleted> them", the other part wants to agree with you.

[anniegetyourgun]

That Common Tator is good, eh? Personally, I've been assuming that the UN tango is simply an appeasement to libs here and abroad....whilst we build up. I figure things light up after Christmas.

[Grampa Dave]

In the midst of confusion and a lot of emotions/words flying around, a few well crafted understatements help to focus on what was really said and how it was said.

[Focault's Pendulum]

That Common Tator is good, eh?

Yeah. I've been trying to figure this poster out, for awhile, and have come to the conclusion it's actually a brain trust, compiled of many brilliant people....much like my own screename...but without the scotch......or the meds treating my multiple personalities.